Time delay and 14F4.

[Localtdforsythe]

There is no way I can keep score for 50 moves, when the time is down to G/5 (t/d 5). Even with the 5 seconds, would only have 9 minutes and 10 seconds just to make all the moves with the scoresheet. The only way I can make the scoresheet right, would be on my opponents time.

If my opponent is under 5 minutes also, my opponent would not need to make the scoresheet right. As I would be making the claim of the 50 move rule. My opponent can move within the 5 seconds, as my opponent is not going to make the 50 move rule. If my opponent make the moves within the 5 seconds or a few extra seconds. I would not have the time to record my moves and my opponents moves also.

If the director rejects my claim under 14F4, would need to keep score for myself, my opponent and make my moves. There is little hope to be able to do this within the G/5 (t/d 5), less if I could have made the insufficient losing chances when the clock is now under G/2 (t/d 5). It even becomes worse if I have to keep score during a Quick game with 3 second delay or a Blitz game with a 2 second delay.

If the director rejects the 14F4 claim, would not have the time to use the scoresheet to make a 50 move rule claim on my scoresheet. If it comes down to a K+R vs K+R, and having less time then my opponent. Would lose on time first, as now the game is only slap the clock. As I cannot make a claim of insufficient losing chances, or the director force a claim of insufficient losing chances. The director having rejected the 14F4 claim, would force myself in the end to lose on time.

If the clock are set at G/1 (t/d 5) vs G/4 (t/d 5), with K+R vs K+R. The player with G/1 (t/d 5) will in the end lose the game. It could take 100 or 400 moves, in the end the time is against myself to win the game.

[Localtdforsythe]

@rfeditor

The sudden-death rule has relieved you of the need for a complete scoresheet to claim a win on time. But, if you want the privilege of claiming a draw by repetition or 50-move rule, it is up to you to keep score. If you misallocate your time and choose not to keep score, it is not the job of the TD to save you from yourself.

If it is a Quick, G/10 (t/d 3) to G/29 (t/d 3) or Blitz G/5 (t/d 2) to G/9 (t/d 2). The rules are very clear, the players do not need to keep score. If a Quick or Blitz game, you would be demanding the players to keep score during the rejected claim of 14F4?

John, is there anyway you can keep score for yourself, your opponent and make 50 move within a game at G/1 (t/d 2)? This is the reason I would never have time delay for a Blitz game. As a director do not want to count 50 moves for a 14F4 claim. The player with a K+R vs K+R does not want to play out 50 moves when the player can make a insufficient losing chance claim. Would anyone want to make 50 moves when the Blitz game is down to less the one minute on a time delay clock with 2 seconds?

[Smythe_Dakota]

@Localtdforsythe

… Not me. If it is a blitz game, and your down to G/0:01 (t/d 2), going to make you risk the 3 seconds for the next 50 moves. Going to make you play it out till you blunder or lose on time. Sooner or later your arm is going to get tired …

If you have players like that in your blitz tournaments, you might want to announce a rules variation – that 14H claims WILL be considered even in games using the delay, but only in extreme cases.

Or, you can just invoke the “emergency rule” (14J) on those rare occasions which call for it.

Bill Smythe

[Localtdforsythe]

@Smythe Dakota

@Localtdforsythe

… Not me. If it is a blitz game, and your down to G/0:01 (t/d 2), going to make you risk the 3 seconds for the next 50 moves. Going to make you play it out till you blunder or lose on time. Sooner or later your arm is going to get tired …

If you have players like that in your blitz tournaments, you might want to announce a rules variation – that 14H claims WILL be considered even in games using the delay, but only in extreme cases.

Or, you can just invoke the “emergency rule” (14J) on those rare occasions which call for it.

Bill Smythe:

If the players have a time delay clock, will not break the rules with the 14H or 14I. If the player does not make a claim with 14F4, will not make a ruling. The problem with rule 14J, draw declared by director. It is a draw game when the players are unaware of the situation on the clock, then the director can declare the game a draw.

The problem, it has never been tested with an active time delay clock. If the director has a board with a time delay clock, then declare the game a draw. The director would declare a draw with 14J under insufficient losing chances with the rules of 14H or 14I. But rule 14H1, makes it clear the time delay clock makes the procedure not available.

If the player makes a claim with a time delay clock, only can see the correct answer being rule 14F4a and 14F4b.

[rfeditor]

@Localtdforsythe

@rfeditor

The sudden-death rule has relieved you of the need for a complete scoresheet to claim a win on time. But, if you want the privilege of claiming a draw by repetition or 50-move rule, it is up to you to keep score. If you misallocate your time and choose not to keep score, it is not the job of the TD to save you from yourself.

If it is a Quick, G/10 (t/d 3) to G/29 (t/d 3) or Blitz G/5 (t/d 2) to G/9 (t/d 2). The rules are very clear, the players do not need to keep score. If a Quick or Blitz game, you would be demanding the players to keep score during the rejected claim of 14F4?

John, is there anyway you can keep score for yourself, your opponent and make 50 move within a game at G/1 (t/d 2)? This is the reason I would never have time delay for a Blitz game. As a director do not want to count 50 moves for a 14F4 claim. The player with a K+R vs K+R does not want to play out 50 moves when the player can make a insufficient losing chance claim. Would anyone want to make 50 moves when the Blitz game is down to less the one minute on a time delay clock with 2 seconds?

Of course there is. Move faster. Or win/lose/draw the game in fewer moves. If your argument were correct, there would be no complete game scores for games played at G/1, which is absurd. In any case, this is the price you pay for sudden-death.

You seem to be trying to conflate statute law with common law/equity. You are not going to find a statute law solution (an explicit statement in the rules) for a highly improbable one-off case like a player insisting on playing out K+R vs K+R with time delay. In the extremely unlikely event that this ever arises, the TD should use his discretionary power to impose an equitable solution.

[Localtdforsythe]

@rfeditor

If your argument were correct, there would be no complete game scores for games played at G/1, which is absurd. In any case, this is the price you pay for sudden-death.

John:

If you want to keep score when you are down to less then five miutes, that is your right. If you want to keep score in a Blitz game, that is your right. As a director you do not need to enforce 14F4, as it is a option.

If we can make a position with K+R vs K+R, then have a G/1 (t/d5). Im very sure everyone should lose on time. As I cannot write out on a score sheet 50 moves, and make my moves with one minute on the clock. Even with a 5 second time delay clock.

[Localtdforsythe]

Since starting out with the time delay clocks back in 1999. There have been more annoying problems with time delay, then without time delay. The games at G/30 or slower, only a few games have I been in time trouble. There has never been a time I have lost a game, with a down flag with a game slower then G/30. Time delay is starting to look a little silly.

Time delay is nice, then again why do we need it? That analog clock is starting to look nice. Hmmmm, how much can I get for selling a used Chronus II?

[Terry_Winchester]

@Localtdforsythe

@rfeditor

You can’t replace a time-delay clock with a non-time-delay. I’m not going to waste time chopping logic with you; the idea is absurd.

As a director would not replace a time delay clock with a move counter without time delay. The wording with rule 14F4, never makes it clear about time delay. It only says a clock with a move counter, not a clock with a move counter and time delay. If someone did make a claim of 14F4, would count the moves then replace the clock.

The wording of 14F4f, only says the director has the option to replace the clock with a move counter. The clock could have had time delay or no time delay. The rule states the clock can be replaced with a move counter clock. So in theory a time delay clock could be replaced with a move counter clock without time delay. There is nothing in rule 14F talking about a time delay clock.

The rule 14F4f should say a move counter with time delay. It only says a move counter only. This can be fixed during the next US Open. As I do not like the wording of rule 14F4f, as there is nothing about time delay.

Doug et al,

Are we confusing the situation here somewhat? The purpose of the Time Delay is to void the claim of 14H (Insufficient Losing Chances). It does not void other claims, such as the 50 move rule and Triple Repetition. Players may still make these claims even if they are using a Time Delay.

So then, 14F4 is a claim (concerning the 50-move rule) that a player may use, and gives options for the TD, such as inserting a clock with a move counter. Time delay is not mentioned because it is not relevant, because 14F4 is not a claim that would require a time delay.

For instance, you begin your game with an analog clock, when you are under 5 minutes, you may stop keeping score. You then reach a position in which you need to prove a 50-move claim and you call the TD over to count. If the TD doesn’t have the time to count, he may insert a clock with a move counter with/without setting a delay. (if the TD doesn’t set the delay, then the position may be open to a 14H claim). The delay is of no relevence in the 14F4 claim.

If you had begun the game with a time delay but no move counter, the TD could simply require the move counter to be initiated on the clock, with the time delay feature still on. If the clock is delay only, with no move counting capabilities, then the TD could replace the clock with one which has both. In this situation, both the counter and time delay (because the game started with time delay) would be initiated.

Does this help?

Terry

PS) 14F4 is an optional claim that a player may make. It further tells the TD how to handle that claim.

[Localtdforsythe]

Terry:

If the clock has time delay, 14H or 14I cannot be used by the players or the director. The player only has the right to make a 14F4 claim, the director has a number of options. The way I see how John would deal with the 14F4 claim under five minutes, the player needs to keep score. As John would not replace the clock with a move counter, or count the moves.

If someone would ask for the 14F4 claim, the options would replace the clock with a move counter with time delay. Even that 14F4f onlys says I have the right to replace the clock with a move counter. If I follow the rule of 14F4f with a move counter only, then the player can make a claim on 14H or 14I. The wording with 14F4f with the move counter only, gives a loop hole in the rules that can give the player a right to a 14H or 14I ruling on the next move.

14F4f The director may insert a clock with a move counter that shows the remaining time of both players, set the move counter to zero, and order play to resume.

The director has a number of options, count the moves or replace the clock. Even has the right to reject the players claim.

14F4. Director may count moves in sudden death. In sudden death, a player with less than five minutes remaining and a simplified position in which no pawn moves or captures seem likely may stop both clocks, declair to a director an intention to invoke the 50-move rule when possible, and ask for assistance in counting moves. A director who agrees this is appropriate may count moves or use a deputy or a clock with a move counter to do so.

1. The director can reject the assistance.
   [list=1][*]The players can play on with a draw game.
2. The player cannot prove 50 moves, unless score keeping.
   [/:m]
   []The director can be of assistance.
3. The director can count the moves.
4. The director can replace the clock with a move counter.
   [/*:m][/list:o]

If the director replace the clock, then replace it with a move counter only. On the next move or with less then 2 minutes on the clock for Quick and Regular time controls, or 1 minute with the Blitz time control. The director has opened the door with the 14H or 14I, as the time delay clock has been replaced with a move counter clock only.

If the players started out with a time delay clock, the owner does not want any 14H or 14I claims. If the director has the right to replace the time delay clock with a move counter clock only. There is a huge need to correct this idea. If the game started with a time delay clock, the clock with the move counter should have move counter and time delay.

@Terry Winchester

So then, 14F4 is a claim (concerning the 50-move rule) that a player may use, and gives options for the TD, such as inserting a clock with a move counter. Time delay is not mentioned because it is not relevant, because 14F4 is not a claim that would require a time delay.

If I make a 14F4 claim, then the director with the 14F4f option replace the time delay clock with a move counter clock. You would not find this relevant? If the time delay clock is replace only with a move counter, then you opened the door to make a 14H or 14I claim. Senior Director Terry Winchester, you have given me the reason how to replace a time delay clock in sudden death. Time delay is not relevant!

[Terry_Winchester]

@Localtdforsythe

Terry:

If the clock has time delay, 14H or 14I cannot be used by the players or the director. The player only has the right to make a 14F4 claim, the director has a number of options. The way I see how John would deal with the 14F4 claim under five minutes, the player needs to keep score. As John would not replace the clock with a move counter, or count the moves.

If someone would ask for the 14F4 claim, the options would replace the clock with a move counter with time delay. Even that 14F4f onlys says I have the right to replace the clock with a move counter. If I follow the rule of 14F4f with a move counter only, then the player can make a claim on 14H or 14I. The wording with 14F4f with the move counter only, gives a loop hole in the rules that can give the player a right to a 14H or 14I ruling on the next move.

14F4f The director may insert a clock with a move counter that shows the remaining time of both players, set the move counter to zero, and order play to resume.

The director has a number of options, count the moves or replace the clock. Even has the right to reject the players claim.

14F4. Director may count moves in sudden death. In sudden death, a player with less than five minutes remaining and a simplified position in which no pawn moves or captures seem likely may stop both clocks, declair to a director an intention to invoke the 50-move rule when possible, and ask for assistance in counting moves. A director who agrees this is appropriate may count moves or use a deputy or a clock with a move counter to do so.

1. The director can reject the assistance.
   [list=1][*]The players can play on with a draw game.
2. The player cannot prove 50 moves, unless score keeping.
   [/:m]
   []The director can be of assistance.
3. The director can count the moves.
4. The director can replace the clock with a move counter.
   [/*:m][/list:o]

If the director replace the clock, then replace it with a move counter only. On the next move or with less then 2 minutes on the clock for Quick and Regular time controls, or 1 minute with the Blitz time control. The director has opened the door with the 14H or 14I, as the time delay clock has been replaced with a move counter clock only.

If the players started out with a time delay clock, the owner does not want any 14H or 14I claims. If the director has the right to replace the time delay clock with a move counter clock only. There is a huge need to correct this idea. If the game started with a time delay clock, the clock with the move counter should have move counter and time delay.

@Terry Winchester

So then, 14F4 is a claim (concerning the 50-move rule) that a player may use, and gives options for the TD, such as inserting a clock with a move counter. Time delay is not mentioned because it is not relevant, because 14F4 is not a claim that would require a time delay.

If I make a 14F4 claim, then the director with the 14F4f option replace the time delay clock with a move counter clock. You would not find this relevant? If the time delay clock is replace only with a move counter, then you opened the door to make a 14H or 14I claim. Senior Director Terry Winchester, you have given me the reason how to replace a time delay clock in sudden death. Time delay is not relevant!

Oh, for Christ’s sake, just put a damn delay clock with a move counter on the game and continue. This would be in keeping with the TD’s options in 14H, which is to be able to place a delay clock on a game that didn’t start with one. You need to read all the rules and apply them analogously.

I didn’t find the absence of the delay relevant because 14F perhaps assumes that no delay clock was even on the game. This rule was there before the 14H rule was adopted, and presumed only that a player in time trouble who was not keeping score (which was ruled OK with less than 5 minutes on the clock) could obtain relief from a loss on time by the director keeping count or inserting a clock with a move counter.

Nor do I belive that John was indicating that a player HAD to keep score nor that he would ALWAYS REFUSE to take count.

As to your implied personal attack against me, guess what my reply is!!!

Terry Winchester

[Localtdforsythe]

@Terry Winchester

Oh, for Christ’s sake, just put a #### delay clock with a move counter on the game and continue. This would be in keeping with the TD’s options in 14H, which is to be able to place a delay clock on a game that didn’t start with one. You need to read all the rules and apply them analogously.

I didn’t find the absence of the delay relevant because 14F perhaps assumes that no delay clock was even on the game. This rule was there before the 14H rule was adopted, and presumed only that a player in time trouble who was not keeping score (which was ruled OK with less than 5 minutes on the clock) could obtain relief from a loss on time by the director keeping count or inserting a clock with a move counter.

Terry:

Then rule 14F needs to be updated for time delay. Sure I would place a time delay and move counter on the board, if the game started with time delay. With the wording with 14F, it has not changed to keep up with the use of time delay. It does give the director the right to replace a time delay clock, with just a move counter clock only. Since it has not been updated for time delay, then it needs to be changed.

[e4e5]

Then rule 14F needs to be updated for time delay.

No, it does NOT.
The ONLY time that a delay clock may be substituted for a non-delay clock is when the director chooses to do so within the confines of 14H2a, insufficient losing chances. The TD tip at the end of the section of 14H2 clearly states that.

14F and 14F4f stand on their own. 14H2 stands on its own. Appy them both (yes, it can be done)
In fact, I would contend that if an analog clock is on the games it should be replaced with another analog clock with a move counter (if it is replaced at all). A digital clock without time delay (on) should be replaced with another digital clock without time delay (on) (plus move counter).
I can live with (reluctantly, and you would have to have no alternative avaialble) an analog clock being replaced by a digital clock without time delay on (plus move counter).
A digital clock with time delay on must be replaced with another digital clock with time delay on (plus move counter).

We could add the words “with the same or similar functions available or activated” to every rule that allows a replacement of a clock, but that is redundant, unnecessary and a waste of space in the book.
Of course, then you will argue over the phrase “same or similar”.

14F states that a director MAY count moves in sudden death (then goes on to explain some of the conditions). Or he may insert a move counter. Or he may assign a deputy. The director is NOT required to do so, if he feels the position does not warrant it (e.g. pawns on the board that may move or sufficiently complex positions)

If (and ONLY if) the two rules are invoked, and allowed simultaneously and correctly (i.e. the request for a director to count the moves (14F), AND a claim of insufficient losing chances (14H2a), following the procedures (for both) in the book, then and ONLY then may a delay equipped clock with move counter be substituted for an one that is not.

A director needs to make some common sense decisions. If the position is R+K v R+K, an ILC claim can, and should be immediately upheld. As far as the complaint that a player does not have time to record moves within the confines of the 5 second delay, that is also covered. That is, if a player has less than 5 minutes on the clock he may refrain from keeping score. Checkmarks on the scoresheet would be adequate for a claim of this type. He should indicate on the scoresheet (and to the director) when the 50 moves starts, but that is all that is required.
It is up to the opponent to challenge the 50 move count, by demonstration on his own scoresheet. If he has refrained from keeping score, as is allowed, then he loses the right to the challenge of the move count. (14F4d)
If the move counts are different between the players, that is when you need the TD’s judgement. Actual score will always be prefered over checkmarks, and the TD may check the actual score for missed or incorrect moves.(14F4d and 13C7)

Check the sections on defective clocks (16G, 16O and 16P). You will find the same kind of issues. by 14H2 a defective clock may only be replaced with a clock of similar functionality and activated features. You cannot replace a defective analog clock with a digital clock with time delay on once the game has started. Same rule, Same arguements.

These rules (14F and 14H) are complimentary and not contradictory. Apply them both as allowed within the spirit of the game. They do not need to repeat each other in every possible paragraph. Oh, by the way, do we have to state a seperate sentence in each section of 14F to re-iterate 16Gb on a premature flag fall?
By your arguement we do… but come on…

One more comment before I let this go. If you are going to nit-pick the rulebook, inserting your own interpretation out of context whenever you can, you need to “get a life”. You must read the rules within the context written and apply them in a fair and even manner. The spirit as well as the letter of the law is important.

[Localtdforsythe]

@e4e5

Then rule 14F needs to be updated for time delay.

No, it does NOT.
The ONLY time that a delay clock may be substituted for a non-delay clock is when the director chooses to do so within the confines of 14H2a, insufficient losing chances. The TD tip at the end of the section of 14H2 clearly states that.

14H1. Explanation. This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with time delay, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay feature in operation, the following procedure is available.

If the clock has time delay from the start of the game, the procedure is not available. If the clock has time delay from the start of the game, the procedure 14H2a is not available. Then were back with the 14F4f claim, if the clock started with a time delay clock.

[e4e5]

14H1. Explanation. This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with time delay, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay feature in operation, the following procedure is available.

The request by the player to have an outside agent (director or move counter) is still applicable. Simply turn on the move counter or replace the clock with a move counter and time delay. I still do not see any inconsistency here.

[Localtdforsythe]

@e4e5

14H1. Explanation. This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with time delay, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay feature in operation, the following procedure is available.

The request by the player to have an outside agent (director or move counter) is still applicable. Simply turn on the move counter or replace the clock with a move counter and time delay. I still do not see any inconsistency here.

If someone did come up and make a 14F claim, would count the moves of the game myself. The problem with this, most directors have a large number of boards to watch. Counting the moves would be a minor problem, if you have less then 15 boards going on. Counting moves at one board, can make the director over look the other boards.

Even with time delay, there is always going to be a equal problem with time delay and non-time delay clocks. The time delay clock stops all claims of insufficient losing chances. If the game has time delay, then the game ends up with K+R vs K+R or K+Q vs K+Q, the director or the player does not have the right to make a insufficient losing chances claim (14I4).

Even if White and Black have insufficient material to continue (14D). Even with rule [b]14D1. King vs. King.[b] If both players have time with a time delay clock, would not grant the insufficient losing chance claim. The reason the player wanted a time delay clock, as they wanted to play out the game. Look, if you have a time delay clock with King vs King, if the player will not accept your draw. Then you will have to play out the next 50 moves, or stay at your board till the flag falls. There is nothing I can do as a director, when this happens with a time delay clock.

Now if there are a huge number of boards, more then 15 boards still active. Would see if I can find someone that can count the moves. If I cannot find someone, would replace the clock with a move counter. As most directors would not want to count the moves. As the director is a playing director, or have a larger event to watch. The problem with this, as it can happen all the time. The director does not have a move counter with time delay or the players themselves. If this is the case, then the player can find themselves with a time delay clock replaced with a move counter clock only. As 14F4f only says a move counter clock without time delay.

[e4e5]

The time delay clock stops all claims of insufficient losing chances.

true enough

Even if White and Black have insufficient material to continue (14D). Even with rule [b]14D1. King vs. King.[b] If both players have time with a time delay clock, would not grant the insufficient losing chance claim.

That is incorrect. Insufficient material to continue is NOT an insufficient losing chances claim. 14D is still in effect (only 14H and 14I are exceptions with the delay clock)

Now if there are a huge number of boards, more then 15 boards still active. Would see if I can find someone that can count the moves. If I cannot find someone, would replace the clock with a move counter

You expect two K+R games simultaneously? … give me a break!
With a huge number of boards"… I am sure that you took that into account when organizing your event and you have an adequate staff to cover this huge number of boards. Pull the guy out of the “back room” and let him(her) count the moves!
If the games has a time delay clock on it you cannot replace it with one that does not. You would be replacing a standard clock (5F) with a non-standard one, and the standard clock has priority at all times.

If I cannot find someone, would replace the clock with a move counter. As most directors would not want to count the moves. As the director is a playing director, or have a larger event to watch. The problem with this, as it can happen all the time. The director does not have a move counter with time delay or the players themselves.

The standard clock in sudden death is a clock with time delay (5F). I am NOT going to replace a standard clock with a non-standard one under any circumstances. I will count myself, find a deputy, or allow checkmarks as evidence before I will do that. Period.

by the way, I am also not going to replace a non-standard clock with a standard one during the game, if the game started with the non-standard timer EXCEPT in an ILC claim (TD tip, end of 14H2).

[WildTommy]

Hi,

Rule 5F has this paragraph:

A delay clock (a clock with time delay or add-back capabilities) is the standard timer for sudden death time controls. This clock allows games to be [b]decided entirely by the players /b, with no need for directors to consider insufficient losing chances (14H) [b] or count for the 50-move rule /b.

This seems to imply that if time delay is being used that the player cannot ask the TD to start counting the moves. If my opponent asked the TD to start counting for 50 moves when I had K+R+B and he had K+R, I might object based upon this rule 5F.

I didn’t really expect to see this rule in the rule book, because it really does seem that a TD should always have the option to count 50 moves in a game if the player has requested, even if time delay is being used.

What do you think?

Kind Regards,

Tom Ewers

[Terry_Winchester]

@WildTommy

Hi,

Rule 5F has this paragraph:

A delay clock (a clock with time delay or add-back capabilities) is the standard timer for sudden death time controls. This clock allows games to be [b]decided entirely by the players /b, with no need for directors to consider insufficient losing chances (14H) [b] or count for the 50-move rule /b.

This seems to imply that if time delay is being used that the player cannot ask the TD to start counting the moves. If my opponent asked the TD to start counting for 50 moves when I had K+R+B and he had K+R, I might object based upon this rule 5F.

I didn’t really expect to see this rule in the rule book, because it really does seem that a TD should always have the option to count 50 moves in a game if the player has requested, even if time delay is being used.

What do you think?

Kind Regards,

Tom Ewers

14F4f The director may insert a clock with a move counter that shows the remaining time of both players, set the move counter to zero, and order play to resume. When the clock indicates that both sides have completed 50 further moves, either player may claim a draw. If this method is used, the director should inform the players that if a move is erroneously not counted or double counted, the players should stop the clock and notify the director.

Sounds a bit contradicting, doesn’t it? Even so, good judgement and common sense would indicate that 14F4f is available to the TD.

Though 5F says what you say it says, I don’t think it’s meant to overrule 14F4f. What would the purpose of the two rules be if that were so? The probable idea is that in most 50-move rule situations, the game should be agreed a draw before 50 moves have been made.

But, you say you might appeal, so let’s look at that.

It’s my belief that 14F4 was created to assist players in sever time trouble when they were excused from keeping score, and probably not having the time (even with time delay) to insert even checkmarks. I further believe that 14F4 was created before the ILC claim was adopted, so that the time delay issue was not even involved. Mind you, I have never been a part of any USCF rules decision making, so I’m simply guessing here.

Even so, I would, in most cases, rule that you would not have justification for an on-site appeal, given that 14F4f emphatically states that the TD may insert a clock with a move counter, while on the other hand, 5F merely suggests (but doesn’t prohibit, does it?) a TD counting moves may not be necessasry.

As to Doug’s insane idea about needing to allow a K vs K position to continue, at one time, the rulebook emphatically stated that the TD may adjudicate ridiculous positions. I haven’t been able to find this in the 5th edition. David, was it removed on purpose?

I do agree that the rules do seem contradicting sometimes, but, as it is said in the preface, “the laws of chess cannot and should not cover every possible situation that arises in a game” (or something to that effect). To this end, the TDs should try to find and apply reasonably analogous situations. I don’t think I’ve found one rule that clearly contradicts (or overrules) another one. They may seem to contradict, but I havenn’t seen one which clearly bans the use of another without specifically stating that it does.

Good discussions!

Terry Winchester

[Localtdforsythe]

@e4e5

Even if White and Black have insufficient material to continue (14D). Even with rule [b]14D1. King vs. King.[b] If both players have time with a time delay clock, would not grant the insufficient losing chance claim.

That is incorrect. Insufficient material to continue is NOT an insufficient losing chances claim. 14D is still in effect (only 14H and 14I are exceptions with the delay clock)

e4e5:

If the game has King vs King, you have 20 minutes on your clock, and your opponent has 30 minutes. How can you make a claim of insufficient material when you have time left on the clock? There is nothing in the wording of 14D with the title of director. If you have King vs King, how can you ask the director to call the game a draw?

If the game was between each other, and the game comes to King vs King. There is nothing in 14D that gives the director the right to declare the game a draw. The rule 14D says the game is a draw, but it does not say the director has the right to declare the game a draw. Only the claim of insufficient losing chances, gives the director the right to declare the game a draw. If the game has time delay, then the director has no right to declare the game a draw: with King vs King with time on both clocks.

[Smythe_Dakota]

If a game is king vs king, it is ALREADY a draw, no matter what either player, or the TD, declares. There is no need to “claim” or “declare” anything.

If two players are playing on with king vs king, the TD certainly has a right to stop the game immediately and declare it drawn. This is true even if one player’s flag is down.

The same applies to K+N vs K, K+B vs K, or, for that matter, to ANY position in which there is no sequence of legal moves leading to checkmate.

Bill Smythe